Posted on 10/01/2006 4:18:53 PM PDT by RussP
----cut----
The notion that Intelligent Design theory is fundamentally "unscientific" is based on the philosophy originated by Karl Popper (1902-1994), who postulated a set of rules for science known as "Falsificationism." The main idea is that a hypothesis or theory does not qualify as "scientific" unless it is "falsifiable" (which is independent of whether it is actually "true" or "false"). Popper is revered by evolutionists, but certainly even they would agree that we should not blindly accept his word as revealed truth. So let us consider some of the implications of his "falsifiability" criterion.
----cut----
The ultimate irony here is that, given Popper's definition of science, the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution itself is based on an "unscientific" foundation. How did the first living cell come to be? If Intelligent Design is categorically rejected, then that first cell must have come together more or less by random chance. Mathematicians and physicists have argued (and claim to have proved) that the simplest conceivable living cell is far too complex to have come together by random chance, but evolutionists always reply that, given enough time and space, "anything" can happen. In this case, the evolutionists are correct: proving that the first cell could not have formed by random chance is impossible. But that is just another way of saying that any purely naturalistic theory of abiogenesis is unfalsifiable, hence "unscientific" according to Popper's falsifiability criterion. [When cornered with this undeniable fact, evolutionists usually claim that abiogenesis is "separate" from evolution. But that's not quite true: evolution depends on abiogenesis. Evolution obviously could not have occurred if the first living cell had never come into existence!]
----cut----
(Excerpt) Read more at russp.org ...
See above from Dimensio.
BTW, I am not the one confused, look in a mirror, and you will see the one that is confused.
Incorrect. Abiogenesis means that you get a living cell from purely inanimate matter.
The first cell, by definition, had to come from purely inanimate matter. There was no animated life prior to that first cell. Thus, the first cell was from abiogenesis. QED.
TOE is useless if it can't explain how life evolved from inanimate matter.
Yes, just as archeology is usless without astronomy.
You guys really like that strawman argument.
You completely missed the point of the article, didn't you. Well, I can't say I'm surprised. But I *would* be surprised if you even read it.
"Finally, the theory of evolution is independent of the means by which the first life form(s) came to exist."
But if you would stop and think for a minute, you would quickly realize that modern abiogenesis is nothing more than a refinement of the old, discarded idea "spontaneous generation," which earlier evolutionists pushed and Pasteur repeatedly rejected. Modern evolutionists have simply pushed the origin of evolution farther and farther out to make it even more unfalsifiable.
Also, I am continually amazed at the mental acrobatics that people like you are capable of. You believe that evolution *started* with the first living cell, yet you think that the origin of that cell is completely isolated and separated from the evolution that followed it!
The challenge is to reach people like you through reason. I'm not sure it's possible.
What it says, in my professional opinion, is that evolution is still lacking understanding of some of the most important mecanisms needed to explain complicated biological systems. It would be helpful if the folks who are so sure that natural processes can explain everything we see in the biological world (which includes me) had the humility to admit that.
OUCH!... now stop that..
ID is Agnostic Creativism.. is that an oxy moron?..
No matter... the Chemical SoupNazis will not like it as an answer for orgins..
I know I know.. NO SOUP FOR ME TODAY...
"Intelligent Design fails as science because it is ultimately an appeal to ignorance."
If Intelligent Design is bad science, it is an even more dreadful theology.
I urge you to read a book called "A Different Universe" by Robert Laughlin, a Nobel Prize winner in Physics. In it, he says exactly the opposite of what you are saying. The evolutionist tendency to "explain" the complexity of life by saying "evolution did it" is not a real explanation but merely an appeal to ignorance. It doesn't promote further inquiry; it is an attempt to stop further inquiry.
Perhaps if you used a real logical, factual argument, perhaps you would, but since you seem to enjoy tilting at windmills and strawman arguments, getting your "reasonable" responses will be quite literally impossible.
Review: "Darwin's Black Box, The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" by Michael J. Behe.
For one, Behe thought he had invented Irreducibly Complexity. On pages 203-204, he wonders if some unknown mechanism could generate I.C.-ness. He dismisses the possibility. On page 233 he compares his great discovery to those of Newton, Einstein, Pasteur and Darwin. He should instead have compared himself to Nobel Prize winner H. J. Muller [3], who invented irreducible complexity in 1939. Muller argued in some detail that evolution would routinely cause such systems. That conclusion is today a common wisdom of evolutionary biology. Behe didn't rebut Muller's argument because he didn't even know it existed. He says on page 187 that evolution always progresses by addition, but any evolutionist knows that it often happens by subtraction.The thing in question here is the very feature of irreducible complexity itself, a real cornerstone of ID.
I'll be out of this for a while, folks. I'm going to pump some iron so I can look a bit more like a gorilla (with a bit less hair, I hope)!
So, Astronomy is invalid if we can't explain the origins of the Universe?
Actually, I suppose that is true of all science. None of it is "possible withough the first" atom.
To maybe take your "argument" into something easier (I try to be kind): Can you not drive a car if you don't know how one is built? It is not possible to drive one if it isn't built.
Do you see how your strawman is on fire and running down the road like Frosty screaming "take the hat off!! take the hat off!!"?
Why?
When your argument is based on an unsupported assertion, your argument becomes an unsupported assertion.
...
I challenge evolutionists to read the article and actually think rather than simply regurgitating the standard evolutionist talking points and ad hominem insults.
Where did this "think" talking point come from? It is a new buillt-in ad hominem that comes out of the CR/IDer community. To "think" is NOT to get drunk and repeat sophomoric drivel in the guise of "advanced thought." To "think" (at least for our purposes) is to take supported facts and analyzes and extend them by logic, data and further analysis. Adding in false "facts" (most scientists say...) or "analysis" (it MUST be so), isn't "thinking" it is "BSing."
As I have pointed out, what group of people prize "thinking" over "logic?"
Why not?
LOL!!! Cool!!! I win!!! LOL!!!
Feel free to go back to making stupid comments now...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.